Are we now agreed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think in all the excitement you neglected to define what a "true for me" entails.

You could perhaps also straighten out a few circular arguments?

[SusanDoris]

As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?

Well, of course!

It would be nice to think that AB and a few others have realised that such agreement is the rational way forward.

[Spud]

I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, of course!

It would be nice to think that AB and a few others have realised that such agreement is the rational way forward.

Nobody can agree unless they understand what this gentleman means by "true for you" . Is he saying that it is a question of taste.or its a euphimism for being off your rocker or what?

[Aruntraveller]

I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.

No they don't. Or at least not all of them. And even if they do that could be read just as a reflection of the cultural and social mores that they grew up with.

[Owlswing]

As it’s all gone a bit quiet round here recently are we now agreed that while anyone is of course free to believe in whichever god or gods suit, no-one here has a logically coherent argument for their theistic beliefs to be true for other people too?

I would consider that no such is possible on the basis of my own all too frequently stated belief that my theistic beliefs are just that - a matter of faith not a matter of fact.

YES! I wholeheartedly believe that the deoities to whom I speak in Circle at least thirteen times a yeat do exist, if I didn't I wouldn't be speaking to them.

NO! I do not expect anyone attached to any other religion to agree with me.

NO! I do not believe that anyone in the foreseeable future will be able to convince the adherenyts of the major religions of this world that their beliefs are equally of fauth not fact. You are more likely to see Donald Trump convinced to convert to being an honest man.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).

Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying  process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.

Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time.  Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.

Bound to happen IMO.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).

Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying  process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.

Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time.  Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.

Bound to happen IMO.

Cheers.

Sriram

I think that manifests multiple myths, the myths of progress, of continuity, of the centrality of humans, of the desire for there to be a simple underlying explanation for all things.  These notions pervade and persist because they are attractive.  Whatever nice little trajectory of progress we envision for ourselves, sooner or later reality will come back to bite us and force us to reset our illusions. Human civilisation as we know it will come to an end, if it is not a global pandemic or nuclear war or an asteroid strike or other such cosmic or geological event then it will be our own self induced climate change that will lead to global conflict on scales such that our knowledge and progress will be lost and humans will return to a new dark age of ignorance once again in direct brutal competition with other species for survival in a world that is no longer human-friendly.  We are already on borrowed time.

[Maeght]

I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.

I'm sure you'd like to think that but doubt it is true. What evidence do you have of people who say there is no God praying?

[SteveH]

Hi everyone,

Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).

Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying  process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.

Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time.  Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.

Bound to happen IMO.

Cheers.

Sriram

Ingenious metaphor, but that's all it is. Metaphors can be useful to illustrate an argument, but they are not arguments in themselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Spud,

I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help, so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.

First, atheism isn’t “there is no God” – it’s “there is no good reason to think there to be a god (or gods)”.

Second, your premise is highly dubious because many people in trouble do not pray to a god at all.

Third, that those who do pray pray to various different gods would mean that, by your reasoning, they must know all those different gods to be real – presumably not something you’d want to argue for?

Fourth, there’s no logical path from praying in extremis to the god with which someone happens to be most familiar and that god actually therefore being real.

[SteveH]

Hi Spud,

First, atheism isn’t “there is no God” – it’s “there is no good reason to think there to be a god (or gods)”.

That's agnosticism, surely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Sriram,

Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).

Similarly, even though different people follow different religious beliefs, the underlying  process of development and awakening consciousness is the same in all humans. Different paths to the same goal. This is the principle behind secular spirituality.

Maybe the entire theory of spirituality is somewhat sketchy currently. But it will, no doubt, develop further and become more and more acceptable to all people around the world, over a period of time.  Then we will have a common theory that will explain all spiritual and religious phenomena and hopefully tie it up with the physical world as well.

Bound to happen IMO.

“Somewhat” sketchy?!!!!!

Anyway, a nice metaphor but it says nothing to the point. Even if by various means we all ended up equally “spiritual”, elevated, at one with the universe, floating on little clouds and playing harps etc that would say nothing whatever to the absence of coherent argument for their being a god.

Theists assert there to be a personal god. As Owlswing notes, as a personal truth that’s no-one’s business but their own – they can really, really believe it to be true to their heart’s content for all it matters to anyone else – but the question is whether we’re at the end of the road here inasmuch as no contributors to this mb have ever managed a coherent argument in logic for their god to be true for anyone else too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

OC,

That's agnosticism, surely.

No, it's atheism. Agnosticism is something else. For an atheist t say "there is no god" would be a positive statement that would place the burden of proof on him to demonstrate the claim. To borrow from Russell, if I were to tell you that there's a teapot orbiting the Earth just beyond the range of telescopes can detect it "a-"teapotism" would be "there's no reason to think you to be right about that".  "There is no teapot" on the other hand would be an opinion but not a fact.

[Sriram]

I think that manifests multiple myths, the myths of progress, of continuity, of the centrality of humans, of the desire for there to be a simple underlying explanation for all things.  These notions pervade and persist because they are attractive.  Whatever nice little trajectory of progress we envision for ourselves, sooner or later reality will come back to bite us and force us to reset our illusions. Human civilisation as we know it will come to an end, if it is not a global pandemic or nuclear war or an asteroid strike or other such cosmic or geological event then it will be our own self induced climate change that will lead to global conflict on scales such that our knowledge and progress will be lost and humans will return to a new dark age of ignorance once again in direct brutal competition with other species for survival in a world that is no longer human-friendly.  We are already on borrowed time.

None of it is a myth. We do actually see humans developing into civilized and more humane beings. We do see different individuals at different levels of development, emotionally and intellectually. We do have people experiencing NDE's. We do have documented accounts of reincarnated people. And much more.

What will come of the climate change issue I am not sure, but I think that spiritual development will only get accelerated. Maybe a part of humanity (and other species) will get destroyed. But that is part of the natural process. Many species have become extinct in the past but all that has only aided the development of humans and the emergence of civilization.

Everything is in control at some higher level of consciousness, IMO.

[jeremyp]

I'll have a go. People who say there is no God do not really believe that, because when they are in trouble they pray for help

Citation needed for that claim. I know for a fact that I don't pray for help. I know it's useless.

so deep down they know (better, perhaps, they believe) he exists.

And yet, when Christians lose loved ones, they get just as upset as non Christians and when they are in danger of death, they get just as frightened as non Christians. So deep down inside they must know that God does not exist and they are not going to heaven.

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

Different people eat different foods to suit their environment, cultural background, tastes and preferences. No one can object to that. But that deep down, the process of digestion is the same for all humans, is a fact (with perhaps minor variations).

So, to follow the analogy to its conclusion: religion turns everything to shit.

[SusanDoris]

Citation needed for that claim. I know for a fact that I don't pray for help. I know it's useless.

I find that the  thought of praying doesn't even come to my mind.

And yet, when Christians lose loved ones, they get just as upset as non Christians and when they are in danger of death, they get just as frightened as non Christians. So deep down inside they must know that God does not exist and they are not going to heaven.

I certainly agree. I know quite a few of my contemporaries who think that, but would never actually admit it and in any case, it is not something that one can push them into facing; and this subject could only be talked of if they themselves raised it.

[Spud]

Hi Spud,

First, atheism isn’t “there is no God” – it’s “there is no good reason to think there to be a god (or gods)”.

Second, your premise is highly dubious because many people in trouble do not pray to a god at all.

Third, that those who do pray pray to various different gods would mean that, by your reasoning, they must know all those different gods to be real – presumably not something you’d want to argue for?

Fourth, there’s no logical path from praying in extremis to the god with which someone happens to be most familiar and that god actually therefore being real.

Hi blu,
The basis for my argument is Romans 1 where Paul says that everyone knows it is true that God exists, but they suppress that truth. However, I didn't know that apparently only some non-believers pray in times of crisis, so I will re-work my original argument. God may not be visible, but the things that are visible are evidence that he exists. How? To quote Matthew Henry, they "could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Ps. 19:1; Isa. 40:26; Acts 17:24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The basis for my argument is Romans 1...

Doesn't help you. I have no idea whether your reading of Romans 1 is correct or not, but you've just shifted the problem back one stage. You can't have an argument for the objective existence of a god that's "because a book says so" unless you can demonstrate first why this particular book is an infallible source.

That is, that you think a book to be accurate is a statement of faith but as yet you have no supporting logic to validate that claim.

[Maeght]

Hi blu,
The basis for my argument is Romans 1 where Paul says that everyone knows it is true that God exists, but they suppress that truth.

And how would he know?

However, I didn't know that apparently only some non-believers pray in times of crisis, so I will re-work my original argument.

Really?

God may not be visible, but the things that are visible are evidence that he exists.

No, only to those that believe.

To quote Matthew Henry, they "could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Ps. 19:1; Isa. 40:26; Acts 17:24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead."

And how would he know?

[Gordon]

Hi blu,
The basis for my argument is Romans 1 where Paul says that everyone knows it is true that God exists, but they suppress that truth. However, I didn't know that apparently only some non-believers pray in times of crisis, so I will re-work my original argument. God may not be visible, but the things that are visible are evidence that he exists. How? To quote Matthew Henry, they "could not make themselves, nor fall into such an exact order and harmony by any casual hits; and therefore must have been produced by some first cause or intelligent agent, which first cause could be no other than an eternal powerful God. See Ps. 19:1; Isa. 40:26; Acts 17:24. The workman is known by his work. The variety, multitude, order, beauty, harmony, different nature, and excellent contrivance, of the things that are made, the direction of them to certain ends, and the concurrence of all the parts to the good and beauty of the whole, do abundantly prove a Creator and his eternal power and Godhead."

Good heavens, Spud!

You could drive a coach and horses (several in fact) through that pile of fallacious rambling.

[Spud]

Good heavens, Spud!

You could drive a coach and horses (several in fact) through that pile of fallacious rambling.

Or a steam train, Gordon?

Spud,

Doesn't help you. I have no idea whether your reading of Romans 1 is correct or not, but you've just shifted the problem back one stage. You can't have an argument for the objective existence of a god that's "because a book says so" unless you can demonstrate first why this particular book is an infallible source.

That is, that you think a book to be accurate is a statement of faith but as yet you have no supporting logic to validate that claim.

Paul's logic is explained in the quote from Matthew Henry... maybe evaluate the quote before you bin Romans 1?

[Spud]

And how would he know?

As Sriram says, we all digest food the same way; likewise we can all deduce that this ordered universe could not make itself.